EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

Because it's not comparable in optical quality. Word is it is definitely better.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

 

[luciolepri]

But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

In my opinion, if you consider "crappy" the performances of the 24-105, you need at least a 24-70/2,8 II to see a real difference. But distortion at 24mm is evident anyway, so if you need a good 24mm the only reasonable choices are the primes. I can't consider the 24-70/4 anything but useless. Unless weight, dimensions and MFD are crucial.
Anyway, I have to say that I work 99% of the times in the video field, where resolution differences are less evident, I never used the 24-70/4 for pictures, so maybe I'm missing something...

 

[AG]

I can also see this being appealing to video shooters like myself too. Where the fact that the lens is f4 doesnt really matter when shooting interviews with a swaying subject, more likely you are sitting at f8 anyhow to not have to continually pull focus.

Sure the loss of the 105 end will be missed, but when you have a lens case full of cine primes and just need to shoot that handheld shot from within a car at 35mm the IS in this lens would be handy, also the macro for face and eye ECU.

As for people that are complaining that they will lose too much as a "walk around lens", take a look at your pictures you have taken. What was the main focal length you shot at? and if you are walking cant you just take a step or two forward? (i understand not always possible)

Im also waiting for Canon to announce something like a "twin lens kit" with this and the 70-200 f4 IS bundled with a 6D for the advanced hobbyist (or first timer with more money than skill).

 

[Jack Douglas]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi.

When I read all the pro reviews on the 6D back then it was all negative. Then I started reading reviews from owners and it was all positive. Pretty obvious what is going on isn't it.

Jack

 

[bholliman]

the resolving power of the 24-105 is not up there with the 24-70s or the 70-200s.

All the comparisons between the 24-105 and 24-70 f/4.0 show they are very similar in IQ. About the only advantage the 24-70 f/4.0 brings to the table is its near macro capabilities.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Canon's pricing of the individual 24-70 f/4.0 lenses makes the venerable 24-105 look good by comparison.

 

[bholliman]

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically.

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

 

[x-vision]

But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

If I have to choose between the 24-70 and 24-105, I'd go for the former ... but only after its price drops below $1K.
To me, the current premium for the 24-70 is totally unjustified.

 

[Lemon]

The 6D with 24-70 F4L IS is sold here in Japan as a kit for a quite a while already, side by side with the 24-105 kit.

There is no 5D MkIII with 24-70 kit at the moment though, only with 24-105.

 

[Nishi Drew]

The 6D with 24-70 F4L IS is sold here in Japan as a kit for a quite a while already, side by side with the 24-105 kit.

There is no 5D MkIII with 24-70 kit at the moment though, only with 24-105.

Yeah and Yodobashi is filled with both the 24-70 and 24-105 for trying out, the 24-105 is shown on a 1DX as well. It seems logical to discontinue that lens but it doesn't look like it's going anywhere yet

 

[clicstudio]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

 

[Dylan777]

Perfect set for 3,4,5ti shooters to jump into FF world.

 

[sanj]

I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility. I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D. I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.

Agree agree agree

 

[sanj]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

You forgot to add IS.

 

[Sporgon]

This really is the 70-300L all over again - a lens that is now proving itself IQ wise - yet at it's introduction was met with howls of derision. The reviewers stated it wasn't as good as the 70-200 and only marginally better than the non L - all rubbish in practice.

Guys: this 24-70 f4 is better than the 24-105 in every way - apart from reach and price. The price wil undoubtably come down.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

In my opinion, if you consider "crappy" the performances of the 24-105, you need at least a 24-70/2,8 II to see a real difference. But distortion at 24mm is evident anyway, so if you need a good 24mm the only reasonable choices are the primes. I can't consider the 24-70/4 anything but useless. Unless weight, dimensions and MFD are crucial.
Anyway, I have to say that I work 99% of the times in the video field, where resolution differences are less evident, I never used the 24-70/4 for pictures, so maybe I'm missing something...

Yeah video is a lot different than stills.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically.

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi.

I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.

 

[verysimplejason]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi.

I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.

Then I guess, the kit's not for you. There are other kits that includes 24-105 or 24-70 F2.8. I think people complaints are unwarranted since other choices still remain.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi.

I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.

Then I guess, the kit's not for you. There are other kits that includes 24-105 or 24-70 F2.8. I think people complaints are unwarranted since other choices still remain.

Indeed - as long as the 24-105mm is not discontinued, I have no issues with Canon selling whatever other kits.